The day after I saw them at the Golden Globes, I read that Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban had welcomed a new baby into their family. My immediate thought was ‘what designer was she wearing? She didn’t look pregnant at all!’. Well, okay, maybe I didn’t think that, I’m not that blonde, but for a split-second there was a confused frown on my face.
Kidman and Urban had the latest addition to their family via a surrogate which means someone else carried the baby for them. Until recently, Altruistic Surrogacy; the act of carrying someone else’s baby for no money, was illegal in Australia. Furthermore, Commercial Surrogacy is still considered to be a criminal act in a lot of countries – but why?

There are plenty of others who have also gone down this path such as Elton John & David Furnish who had their son Zachary via an anonymous egg donor. This latest round of celebrity surrogate babies are nothing new though. Ricky Martin famously had twins via a surrogate mother prior to revealing the truth about his long speculated sexuality. The same thing happened with footballer Cristiano Ronaldo; before you get too excited I’m talking about the surrogacy part, not his sexuality.

Surrogacy as an option for having children is a very important one in my personal opinion. If a mother is unable to conceive through IVF or afford repeated rounds of the treatment which is extremely expensive, then having a child via surrogate may be their last hope of having a biological child of their own. It may not be as nature intended, but does that mean that we should deny those who long for children of their own the opportunity to become parents?

A recent story line in one of my favourite TV show “Brothers & Sisters” featured a surrogate mother when characters Kevin and Scotty had a friend impregnated. Aside from adopting children, surrogacy is the only means of two gay men or even a single gay man having a biological child of their own. This is certainly the case with Ricky Martin who is a single parent to his twins.

There are still people who think that those in same-sex relationships or those who wish to become single parents should not be allowed to do so. With so many single parents these days, these people are simply ignorant. Surrogacy does not have the same number of hoops to jump through and restraints that adoption does and is likely a much easier process than attempting adoption.

A surrogate mother who had a baby girl for a couple but changed her mind about handing her over is allowed to keep her, a judge has ruled.
The welfare of the six-month-old child, known only as T, “requires her to remain with her mother”, said Mr Justice Baker, giving reasons yesterday for a decision he made after a hearing in Birmingham last month.

He said: “In my judgment, there is a clear attachment between mother and daughter. To remove her from her mother’s care would cause a measure of harm. It is the mother who, I find, is better able to meet T’s needs, in particular her emotional needs.”

The judge said the risks of entering into a surrogacy agreement are “very considerable”.

He added: “In particular, the natural process of carrying and giving birth to a baby creates an attachment which may be so strong that the surrogate mother finds herself unable to give up the child.”

He said the mother met the couple, Mr and Mrs W, over the internet in 2009 and agreed informally that the mother would be inseminated by Mr W, and hand the baby over after the birth.

During the pregnancy, however, she changed her mind, and at T’s birth refused to hand over the baby as agreed.

The mother has two older children. Mr W is a chef and he and Mrs W were married in 2005.

After Mr and Mrs W were married, they tried to have a baby themselves, but their attempts resulted in a series of miscarriages, which led them to consider surrogacy.

It was agreed that the mother would act as a surrogate for the Ws, using Mr W’s sperm, and she became pregnant, but at some point during the pregnancy, relations between the parties deteriorated.

Surrogacy – Well, the birth and subsequent remarks made by Nicole Kidman, who just had a daughter via surrogacy with her husband Keith Urban, is causing quite a stir in their native country Australia. The web is filled with comments regarding Nicole’s statement:

“Our family is truly blessed, and just so thankful, to have been given the gift of baby Faith Margaret. No words can adequately convey the incredible gratitude that we feel for everyone who was so supportive throughout this process, in particular our gestational carrier.”

Comments such as those below are taking her use of carrier instead of surrogate to heart:

Australians are aghast that expatriate couple Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban described the unidentified surrogate mother who delivered their second child at a US hospital last month as their ‘gestational carrier.’
‘In those last two words, the woman whose body nurtured this child for nine months is stripped of humanity,’ social commentator Melinda Tankard Reist wrote in The Australian newspaper Wednesday.

‘The phrase is reminiscent of other terms popular in the global baby-production industry, such as suitcase, baby capsule, oven and incubator.’

Did she truly mean to “strip their surrogate of her humanity?” Or, did she refer to her surrogate as she was defined in her surrogacy agreement? Did she even know what the other terms there were? Does this mean she was detacted from the surrogacy? Who actually knows? Why does that matter?

As an attorney in this field, I see these wonderful women referred to as gestational carrier, gestational surrogate (which I prefer), surrogate, surrogate mother, and carrier in both the agreements and in general – sometimes it is the parents’ level of comfort and sometimes it is attorney preference. And, why is this such a big issue? The fact that she acknowledged the woman who carried her child (aka gestational carrier) is more than enough for me. What do you think?

In a landmark case, a British high court judge has allowed a couple that paid their American surrogate more than “reasonable expenses” to keep the baby even though that type of payment is not allowed under British law. “The baby was allowed to enter Britain temporarily on a US passport, but would have been potentially stateless and parentless if the courts had not retrospectively approved the large payment.”

The British couple entered into the surrogacy agreement with their American surrogate only after several failed IVF attempts and miscarriages. They felt like they had “exhausted all our other options for having a family.”

In the United Kingdom, “no commercial arrangements are permitted to be made and it is illegal to pay a surrogate mother more than ‘reasonable expenses.’” However, there are not restrictions on what surrogates can be paid in the United States.

In his ruling, Mr. Justice Hedley stressed that this was clearly a commercial surrogacy arrangement but that the couple were “most careful and conscientious parents” and granted them full parental custody of the child.

The lawyers for the couple stated that “[t]he reason this case was published was because the judge wanted to highlight the legal and immigration difficulties faced by intended parents, and the poor public information which parents continue to fall foul of. Surrogacy is invariably a last option for those who have had a long and difficult battle with infertility.

International surrogacy arrangements are typically entered into with enormous care and thought. In Illinois, there are many checks built into the system – where this is a long established and successful process – including counseling, psychological testing and independent legal advice for everyone involved at the outset.”

I just read a wonderful book, and I want to share it with all of you. It is Once Upon a Surrogate: The Stork’s Helpers by Jill Hancock Reeder

This book is an absolute joy to read and a book that NEEDED to be written. Jill, with the help of her supportive and creative family, has created an absolutely beautiful story that describes the process of surrogacy to the children of the surrogate, who are often overlooked in the process, Once Upon a Surrogate provides an excellent conversation starter for surrogates and their families.

Find it here. Buy one for your family or for your surrogate – the perfect holiday gift!

I have been watching what is transpiring over in NSW Australia for the last few weeks, and it pains me to see options for creating families for some being taken away. Join GetUp! and voice your opposition. For more information, see Stephen Page’s Blog or the GetUp! website.

Today brings a mixture of joy and saddness. First, I am celebrating my 25th wedding anniversary in Maui; but more importantly, on Saturday a phenomenal woman died. She was an awesome mother to three children, wife to a wonderful & supportive husband and surrogate mother to two wonderful children. It is now with great sadness that I dedicate today’s blog to Mrs. Tonya Trayer – our thoughts and prayers are with your family. We hope that you are smiling down on us – you did not need to die, but you truly were an angel.

See story on Tonya and her family – will provide updates as they come in.

Happy Friday! A few updates on federal stem cell research courtesy of the ASRM and Australian surrogacy law. Enjoy!

Surrogacy bill gives parents more rights (Sydney, Australia) –

The Syndey Morning Herald
PARENTS of children born through surrogacy would be given full legal recognition for the first time, under a bill introduced in Parliament last night. Couples would also be able to enter into surrogacy arrangements abroad.

Couples would also be able to adopt a child born to a surrogate mother between 30 days and six months of birth.

MPs will have a conscience vote on the legislation, and it is likely the Opposition will follow suit, although this is yet to be decided.

Church groups are likely to oppose the legislation, which is expected to be less contentious than recent legislation to allow same-sex adoption, narrowly passed last month.

The legislation would ban commercial surrogacy and any associated advertising, although it does provide for all costs of the birth mother to be paid by the intended parents.

It follows a parliamentary inquiry last year that recommended the legislation – despite intense lobbying from church groups – be introduced to strengthen the position of intending parents in a surrogacy birth.

The legislation would allow a court to approve a parentage order once it was satisfied the birth mother and the intended parents had been given legal advice and counselling and had given their informed consent. The birth mother would have to be over 25 when entering a surrogacy agreement.

The Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, said yesterday: ”While it will still be illegal to profit from surrogacy, the birth mother in an altruistic surrogacy will have a legal entitlement to be reimbursed for expenses such as medical and counselling.

“Until now the only way people with children born through surrogacy have been able to gain full parenting rights has been through adoption processes.

ASRM is a founding member of the CAMR; what follows in an update by CAMR immediate Past- President Amy Rick, CEO of the Parkinson’s Action Network, who has been heading up the legal effort for the coalition. The ASRM Public Affairs Staff was deeply involved in the preparation of CAMR’s brief.

The stem cell litigation continues to wind its way through the US court system. As you may recall, the lawsuit is currently in both the District Court, before Judge Lamberth, and in the Court of Appeals, before a three-judge panel. The District Court is receiving arguments “on the merits” whereas the Court of Appeals is technically ruling on whether Judge Lamberth was legally correct when he issued a preliminary injunction on August 23. However, it remains our hope that the Court of Appeals, in hearing arguments on the preliminary injunction, will issue an order that resolves the whole case.

Three significant briefs have been filed in the Court of Appeals in the last few days. On Thursday, the Department of Justice (DoJ) filed its brief. Once again, they did an excellent job representing the National Institutes of Health. Their brief is particularly strong on why the legislative history for Dickey Wicker supports the government’s interpretation and on supporting the need for human embryonic stem cell research to be conducted along with adult and induced pluripotent research. I am hopeful that the Court of Appeals will find DoJ’s arguments compelling.

Two amicus briefs were also filed this week in support of the DoJ brief. An amicus brief is a brief filed by an outside party in a lawsuit that wants to offer additional information for the court to consider. The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research (CAMR), in conjunction with the State of Wisconsin and the Genetics Policy Institute (GPI), filed an amicus brief on Monday and yesterday, the University of California (UC) filed its own amicus. The Court of Appeals requires that amicus filers attempt to coordinate, so we are pleased that both Wisconsin and GPI agreed to join with CAMR’s brief. Both the CAMR brief and the UC brief do an excellent job supporting the government’s position, although they are quite different from each other. The CAMR brief focuses on the process of stem cell line derivation (which is not done with federal funds) and the legislative history. The UC brief goes back to the earlier decision of the Court of Appeals that grants standing to the two plaintiffs. In my opinion, the UC brief makes an excellent case for why the Court of Appeals should reverse its earlier decision and dismiss this whole case on the grounds that the plaintiffs do not have standing.

The DoJ brief and both amicus briefs can be found on the CAMR website at http://camradvocacy.org/resources.cfm.

The next significant dates in the Court of Appeals are October 28, when the plaintiffs’ brief is due, and then November 4 when DoJ’s final reply will be filed. We expect oral argument to occur shortly thereafter although oral argument is not yet scheduled. The briefing schedule for the District Court mirrors the Appeals court schedule so it is our expectation that Judge Lamberth will wait for the Court of Appeals ruling before he rules.

Are you wearing purple today? If not, you should be. I am – Purple shirt, purple jacket and purple shoes…Why, you ask? Because of homophobic abuse suffered at the hands of bullies and the resulting suicides that continue to take place:

“On October 20th, 2010, we will wear purple in honor of the seven gay boys who committed suicide in recent weeks/months, many of them due to homophobic abuse in their homes or at their schools,” Brittany McMillan said. “Purple represents Spirit on the LGBTQ flag and that’s exactly what we’d like all of you to have with you: spirit. Please know that times will get better and that you will meet people who will love you and respect you for who you are, no matter your sexuality.” Using her account, McMillan was able to spread her request with chain-letter like speed.

And, don’t forget forget tomorrow’s Surrogacy Lawyer Radio Show: Your Guide for IVF & Third Party Family Building at 11AM PST/2PM EST

The Surrogacy Lawyer invites you to join her for an informative discussion on surrogacy on the Thursday, October 21st episode of The Surrogacy Lawyer: Your Guide to IVF and Third Party Reproduction at 11AM PST/2PM EST where she will interview Sharon LaMothe, a former gestational surrogate and author of the upcoming book Surrogacy Helps a Family Grow, and Tracy Armato, program director of Conceptual Options and past surrogate.

When a woman decides to become a surrogate mother, she will have many conversations: with members of the surrogacy agency team, the intended parents, the medical and legal professionals and with her spouse or partner. But one of the most important conversations she will have is with her children. “As The Surrogacy Lawyer and founder of a surrogacy and egg donation agency, I am excited about this new tool to help surrogate mothers talk to their children about the amazing gift they are giving another set of parents,“ says attorney Erickson. “Having open and honest conversations about third party reproduction is essential. I look forward to advancing the conversation about this important topic.”